MRP / Trib. Isaac Heeney - High contact on Jimmy Webster

[The Mares Leg]

Yes, 134 posts in the 10 days since he apparently first joined BF, with the posts becoming increasingly more strident and personal. Hmm.

Thank you for the accomodation - let me know when my lease is up.

Actually best not - I won’t see it.

 

[The Mares Leg]

A few things wrong with this.

Usually a high fend off is a lower impact that falls below the threshold for a reportable offence.
If you did a high fend off that resulted in injury or a blood nose, it would likely be looked at.
A fend off is in the contest and a football act.

This was a strike, not a fend off.
This resulted in a player injury, with the impact being high enough to warrant MRO scrutiny.
This was off the ball (well off it) and is not a football act.

Do you seriously think contact with the back of the hand to the chest is a ‘strike’?

He caught Webster on the nose with the secondary action - you really need to open both eyes.

You can see clearly the initial contact was the chest.

Heeney did himself no favours by saying ‘he didn’t remember what part of his hand made contact’

 

[Stax on the mill]

Thank you for the accomodation - let me know when my lease is up.

Actually best not - I won’t see it.

Yawn. Despite your attempt at sarcasm, you’re just boring. Looks like for a pleb you’re going to be blocking at world record pace.

 

[Maddo11]

For what it's worth it is a ridiculous suspension in line with some that have been handed out in the past for accidental contact that happens in a game.

My biggest gripe is that this particular scenario of trying to break an illegal hold is "usually graded intentional" and therefore one week, but just this year alone, Hewett on neale, Pendlebury on neale, butters on half the comp have been only fines for deliberately gut punching blokes when the ball is dead in the umpires hands.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Do you seriously think contact with the back of the hand to the chest is a ‘strike’?

He caught Webster on the nose with the secondary action - you really need to open both eyes.

You can see clearly the initial contact was the chest.

Heeney did himself no favours by saying ‘he didn’t remember what part of his hand made contact’

View attachment 2044244

Ah yes, the highly emotional supporter of the affected team, telling the neutral to open their eyes...

A swinging arm is a strike. Doesn't matter if the hand is opened, clenched, or if contact is made with the front, side or back of the hand.
The still frame you have used here is AFTER the face contact. You really need to open both eyes.



This is the point of the initial contact.

 

[TheFourPillars]

My biggest gripe is that this particular scenario of trying to break an illegal hold is "usually graded intentional" and therefore one week, but just this year alone, Hewett on neale, Pendlebury on neale, butters on half the comp have been only fines for deliberately gut punching blokes when the ball is dead in the umpires hands.

Agree its inconsistent and frustrating

 

[Elixuh]

We the WWE now. What a circus, afl must be loving it.

#freethepeen

 

[The Mares Leg]

Ah yes, the highly emotional supporter of the affected team, telling the neutral to open their eyes...

A swinging arm is a strike. Doesn't matter if the hand is opened, clenched, or if contact is made with the front, side or back of the hand.
The still frame you have used here is AFTER the face contact. You really need to open both eyes.



This is the point of the initial contact.
View attachment 2044249

Well, looking at that I have to say I’m wrong.

I watched that vid on Twitter, much higher def than TV or You Tube, and yes…I can see it was a backhander across the nose.

Up until this I’d believed it was more incidental than anythjng, part of Webster falling forward.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Well, looking at that I have to say I’m wrong.

I watched that vid on Twitter, much higher def than TV or You Tube, and yes…I can see it was a backhander across the nose.

Up until this I’d believed it was more incidental than anythjng, part of Webster falling forward.

Kudos for changing your stance after going so hard.

 

[The Mares Leg]

Kudos for changing your stance after going so hard.

I’m a mature adult male - not a 15 yr old dweeb - I’ve copped much harder knocks.

 

[MightyBloods]

Let’s see how the appeal goes

Ah yes, The Appeals Board. You'd think would be looked at by a fresh set of eyes. There are 2 Chairs & 3 Panel Members. The 3 Panel Members are all Tribunal members!! What a joke!

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Ah yes, The Appeals Board. You'd think would be looked at by a fresh set of eyes. There are 2 Chairs & 3 Panel Members. The 3 Panel Members are all Tribunal members!! What a joke!

Unless they can find an error of law, it's got no legs.
1. The decision was not unreasonable.
2. The sanction imposed was not manifestly excessive.
3. The classification of offence was not manifestly excessive.
That just leaves error of law as the only grounds left for appeal. I don't blame them for having a crack, but it's a hail Mary.

 

[Hoops]

I hope Heeney gets the most votes, anything to relegate this overrated, flawed award to the status it deserves

 

[Maddo11]

 

[The Mares Leg]

Unless they can find an error of law, it's got no legs.
1. The decision was not unreasonable.
2. The sanction imposed was not manifestly excessive.
3. The classification of offence was not manifestly excessive.
That just leaves error of law as the only grounds left for appeal. I don't blame them for having a crack, but it's a hail Mary.

There was ‘evidence from the bench’ refuting Heeney’s claim that he didn’t see Webster when he threw his arm back.

This was basically the Bench calling Herney a liar, yet Heeney’s statement was not tested in examination.

The Benches ‘finding’ should have been inadmissable & Heeney’s statement recognised in the summing up.

2nd para of post 367.

What staggers me is how a KC could make such a cluster over a basic rule of law.

 

[kickthething]

From Peter Ryan’s article in the age:

Of the 43 players charged this season for striking, 37 have received fines with three suspended and three having bans overturned on appeal.

Wow, Issac one of only 3 to get a suspension with 40 players copping fines.

FFS tell me it’s not a hatchet job.

 

[.Shotties.]

yeah, you are basically just saying webster is at fault for getting hit in the head by another player.

No I'm not. I'm pointing out that the result of an illegal action contributed to the outcome. Is that inaccurate or false?

Cannot believe the pitchfork job you blokes did on peter wright, but when it's one of your own in the fault is defcon 6 delusion.

Pitchfork job? What inconsistencies between my positions are there? Mine, not other Swans fans.

I don't recall any of us blaming Cunningham for getting KO'd.

I was literally engaged in a conversation the other day with someone who said that Cunningham had duty of care. There were pundits talking about a stupid "right of way" rule change.

In any case, how COULD you blame Cunningham? He was first to the contest and won the ball, not tripping because he was holding them illegally.

 

[bloodsbigot]

From Peter Ryan’s article in the age:

Of the 43 players charged this season for striking, 37 have received fines with three suspended and three having bans overturned on appeal.

Wow, Issac one of only 3 to get a suspension with 40 players copping fines.

FFS tell me it’s not a hatchet job.

I guess the AFL figures there's more money to be made with giving Daicos the Brownlow.

 

[Devington]

From Peter Ryan’s article in the age:

Of the 43 players charged this season for striking, 37 have received fines with three suspended and three having bans overturned on appeal.

Wow, Issac one of only 3 to get a suspension with 40 players copping fines.

FFS tell me it’s not a hatchet job.

The majority of those strikes would have been gut punches.

It's a harsh punishment for Heeney, and any other year it wouldn't have been graded as intentional and thus just a fine too; but the rule change is straightforward (except for the part where it says it would "usually" be intentional and then doesn't explain the exceptions.) Comparing his punishment to the succession of fines some others have got for repeated intentional strikes makes a bit of a mockery of things. But it wouldn't be the AFL if the rules and laws weren't a tortured mess of interpretive grey area and complete dissonance.

 

[ashep]

This is the point of the initial contact.

You ain't fooling me. That skinny, brunette lego head isn't my glorious Isaac.

 

[Patronus]

From Peter Ryan’s article in the age:

Of the 43 players charged this season for striking, 37 have received fines with three suspended and three having bans overturned on appeal.

Wow, Issac one of only 3 to get a suspension with 40 players copping fines.

FFS tell me it’s not a hatchet job.

How many of those were hits to the head off the ball?

Heeney is lucky that it was not a 2 week suspension as a player who ends up with a blood nose and having to leave the ground for treatment should not be graded as low impact.

 

[The Mares Leg]

How many of those were hits to the head off the ball?

Heeney is lucky that it was not a 2 week suspension as a player who ends up with a blood nose and having to leave the ground for treatment should not be graded as low impact.

You need to be aware, there is a strong legal argument they will use at the appeal that may well get him off - be prepared to have your bone taken away.

 

[kickthething]

How many of those were hits to the head off the ball?

Heeney is lucky that it was not a 2 week suspension as a player who ends up with a blood nose and having to leave the ground for treatment should not be graded as low impact.

lol, many a low impact blow has resulted in a nose bleed.

 

[skipper kelly]

Let’s see how the appeal goes

I hope he doesn't get off as I fear for the safety of a couple of Essendon supporters. Somethings are bigger than sport.

 

[DapperDon]

I hope he doesn't get off as I fear for the safety of a couple of Essendon supporters. Somethings are bigger than sport.

Is Heeney going to backhand all of us?